IP: more on Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue for the Nation

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Timothy G. Smith" <tgsmith () grouch com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:56:55 -0500
To: <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
Cc: "Jim Thompson" <jim () musenki com>, <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: Re: IP: more on  Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue for the
Nation

Anyone who thinks John had any involvement whatsoever with the daily
operations of Worldcom during the last several years (at least 3 probably
4 ) is missing quite a bit of history.

> From what I have heard, John and Bernie had a major falling out over
Bernie's getting cold feet over the Nextel deal.  John had worked the deal
to completion with Bernie's blessing.  Everything was done but signing the
papers; when it came time to do that Ebbers and Sullivan killed the deal. I
cannot remember exactly when that was but it was probably early to mid '99.
John became very scarce after Bernie burnt him on that deal. He pretty much
went off and did his own thing for quite some time.  If you want to know
what he was working on go take a look at the company www.eci2.com.  Rumor
had it John tried to quit but Ebbers would not let him out of his contract
so John just stopped showing up at WCOM.

Some minor data that may be of interest... UUNET moved out of its corporate
HQ of many years which was located in Fairfax VA in the fall of '99.  The
entire company moved to a new corporate campus in Ashburn VA (right next
door to AOL). The move was huge and was spread over many months and lasted
well into early 2000.   When the senior folks moved to the campus John
dissapeared entirely.  If I remember correctly even his office furniture
never showed up.  I heard rumors that his snail mail was forwarded to ECI2
and I know that is where he maintained his office.    I believe he never
moved to the campus until April of this year when Ebbers was given the boot
and John was asked to take over and drain the swamp.  As an aside, quite a
number of UUNETers went to ECI2.  It was founded by Paula Jagemann in April
of '98 and immediately attracted quite a few of the rank and file folks (do
a web search on Paula and you will find out who she was/is).  Eventually
UUNET's General Counsel left UUNET to work there.  Dave Boast who built the
dial network for UUNET ended up there.

If you want to write a really interesting story then I suggest you dig into
this a bit.  With only a a little digging you should find tons of folks who
can tell you  quite a lot about what went on.  You could come out with the
inside track on how Sidgmore walked away from Ebbers et al in '99.  You
could also look into a lot of other things like what a mess the WCOM IP
network was and that when it was burning down and making big press (remember
the multiday Chicago Board of Trade outage?) how WCOM would not let the
UUNET folks go and fix things.  If you want to find dirt start at the top of
the "old WCOM" and work your way down the food chain and you will find
plenty.  Not just Ebbers and Sullivan but also take a look at Briggs and
keep looking around.  Find a lot of old time UUNET  folks (try the ex UUNET
mailing list <ex-uunet () notonthe net>) and you will find plenty of them.  If
you ask them about the silliness they saw going on you will quite likely get
more data than you could ever use.  You could also try talking to various
movers and shakers who left after WCOM took over as they all eventually left
and I suspect none of them think too highly of Ebbers et al.

For what it is worth, I am ex-UUNET.  I started 27 April 1995 and left at
the end of May 2000 (in other words 30 days after I vested on my original
grant).  To get hired I had to interviewwith Rick Adams (the founder of
UUNET) and Mike O'Dell and I joined a company of less than 200 pople.  While
I am far from buddies with John I certainly was at many an all hands meeting
where he talked to the rank and file and also had enough interaction with
him that he knew who I was.  I moved up through the ranks from individual
contributor to supervisor to manager and then director but worked in
operations where I had little official contact with John.  I have quite a
bit of respect for John and personally feel he is a very sharp guy with good
values and I personally find it damn near impossible to even consider that
he was in any way, shape, or form in the loop on this whole mess.  Please do
not quote me in any conversations you have or reporting you do.  In fact
please forget you ever heard of me.


----- Original Message ----- ia
From: "Jim Thompson" <jim () musenki com>
To: <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
Cc: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: IP: more on Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue for the
Nation


> From: "Dana Blankenhorn" <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> To: "Jim Thompson" <jim () musenki com>
> Subject: Re: IP: more on  Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue for the
Nation
> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:01:42 -0400
>
> The man was vice chairman and chief operating officer. Vice chairman and
> chief operating officer. And you think he did all he could?
>
> No, I think he deliberately did all that he could NOT, so he would not be
> involved, know nothing, and therefore can't be (and isn't) culpable.
>
> You're the reporter, call him up and ask him.  There is a story in
> there somewhere.  I am a little concerned that you've prejudiced in
> your viewpoint before you attempt to discover the facts, however.
> Journalists are supposed to report the story, not an opinion without
> any backing evidence.
>
> Sorry, Jim. I'd believe it if he were just CEO of UUNet, and stuck in a
hole
> somewhere. But the vice chairman and COO has the power to do more, much
> more.
>
> You haven't spent a lot of time inside large corporations, have you?
>
> He should have raised holy hell. And failure to do that makes him part of
> the conspiracy. IMHO.
>
> We all have opinions.
>
> I respect you very much, and I understand your feelings for Sidgmore. But
> when you're COO and vice chairman you're not just "collecting a paycheck."
> If people are going around you there's an affirmative requirement that, as
> COO and vice chairman, you confront them, resign, and call the cops.
Failure
> to do so makes you part of the conspiracy.
>
> I have no 'feelings' for Sidgemore.  I don't know the man, I've never met
him,
> and if he walked though the door here, I would stand only a slim chance of
> recognition.
>
> I do, however, respect any leader who's (mostly former) 'troops' are
nearly
> universal in their willingness to follow him back into the breech.  It
says
> things about that leader that can't be faked by any PR department.
>
> If you really want to go dig, go peek at why the SEC merely slapped the
> hand (no fine, no admission of wrong, just (yet another) "We'll change")
> of MSFT for manipulating their revenue ("cookie-jar" reserves), vastly
> over-valuing the stock to investors..
>
> Jim
>
> Dana Blankenhorn   http://www.a-clue.com
> @Have Modem, Will Travel  dana () a-clue com
> Ph: 404-373-7634   fax: 404-378-0794
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Thompson <jim () musenki com>
> To: farber () cis upenn edu <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Cc: dana () a-clue com <dana () a-clue com>; danablankenhorn () mindspring com
> <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: IP: more on Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue for the
> Nation
>
>
> > Dana, (and Dave),
> >
> > My understanding (I know a few people who were at uunet) is that
Sidgemore
> was
> > deliberately not involved during the time, and likely didn't even cash
his
> > paychecks, refused to move into the 'new' HQ, and may not have even gone
> > into the office.
> >
> > Apparently, Ebbers (the real villain @ WCOM) wouldn't let Sidgemore out
of
> his
> > employment contract.  Sidgemore had little choice but to 'show up' and
'do
> nothing'.
> > Further, as Sidgemore expressed, it was WCOM who turned themselves in,
> audited their
> > auditor, and called in the SEC.
> >
> > Dana, I think you're litterally barking up the wrong tree.  Its not a
> question
> > of Sidgemore's culpability, but rather, his true chutzpah.  I think he's
> doing
> > everything he can (short of tipping his hand) to ensure that Ebbers and
> crew
> > end up in the worst kind of federal prison, while simultaneously setting
up
> > WCOM for a recovery (via the bankruptcy courts, if required.)
> >
> > Dig deeper,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > From owner-ip-sub-1-outgoing () admin listbox com  Wed Jul  3 09:10:39 2002
> > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
> > Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 10:09:36 -0400
> > Subject: IP: more on  Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue
> > for the Nation
> > From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > To: ip <ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com>
> > In-Reply-To: <005a01c2229a$21ed4120$6701a8c0@danaroom>
> > Mime-version: 1.0
> > Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> > Sender: owner-ip-sub-1 () admin listbox com
> > Precedence: list
> > Reply-To: farber () cis upenn edu
> >
> >
> > ------ Forwarded Message
> > From: "Dana Blankenhorn" <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> > Reply-To: "Dana Blankenhorn" <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:57:26 -0400
> > To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> > Subject: Re: Leader Views WorldCom as Security Issue for the Nation
> >
> > In answer to your question, Dave, he was part of the team.
> > (http://www.surferess.com/CEO/html/john_sidgmore.html)
> >
> > Before taking the CEO chair, Sidgmore was COO and vice chairman of
> Worldcom.
> > His statements yesterday were pure chutzpah. (For those unfamiliar with
> the
> > term, the working definition is the boy who kills his parents and then
> > pleads for the court's mercy because he's an orphan.)
> >
> > I was absolutely and totally shocked that no one called him on it. No
one
> > called him on it at the press conference. No one has called him on it in
> the
> > coverage of the event.
> >
> > This is an indictment, not of Sidgmore (you've got to try to brazen it
> out,
> > I suppose) but of the media, the business media in particular and the
> media
> > in general.
> >
> > How can we let this pass? This man was the chief operating officer and
> vice
> > chairman when billions of dollars were stolen directly (through
> accounting)
> > and hundreds of billions more were stolen (through stock bought under
> false
> > pretenses). Thousands of people are losing their jobs over this.
> >
> > What in the world does "fiduciary responsibility" mean anyway? It's
> usually
> > applied to managers of pension funds. Doesn't it apply to corporate
> officers
> > as well?
> >
> > Where is the outrage? Why are these people walking the streets? If
anyone
> > else stole billions of dollars from individuals and institutions over
the
> > course of several years, they would be in jail. Not a "Club Fed,"
either,
> > but a real jail. And their families would forfeit everything (I mean
> > everything). Shouldn't RICO apply to the conspirators at Enron, as well
as
> > Worldcom, and all these other so-called "corporations" that turned out
to
> be
> > shells?
> >
> > The people who run giant companies are given huge responsibility, and we
> > should expect them to do more than just avoid (or evade) the law.
They're
> > supposed to have ethics as well. They're taking our money, the peoples'
> > money, in a public market. It's not a casino. If it becomes a casino,
and
> if
> > such double-dealing goes unpunished, then no business can expect to be
> able
> > to raise capital.
> >
> > Why in the world didn't someone stand up to Sidgmore and ask, "Sir, you
> were
> > COO and vice chairman of this company. Why are you still walking the
> > streets?" How in the world can the vice chairman and COO walk away from
> > responsibility for this kind of fraud, and no one even call him on it?
> >
> > I say this now as a business reporter of 25 years' standing. The
scandals
> of
> > our time go far beyond the boardrooms where they were concocted. They go
> > right down to us, the reporters and editors who are supposed to be
> > responsible in covering them. So far, as far as I can see, we've been
> > nothing more than an audience. And until that changes, I can't expect
> anyone
> > to trust us.
> >
> > Dana Blankenhorn   http://www.a-clue.com
> > @Have Modem, Will Travel  dana () a-clue com
> > Ph: 404-373-7634   fax: 404-378-0794
> >
> > For archives see:
> > http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/